What is the result of a reviewable error in a visa officer's interpretation of paragraph 20(1.1)(a) of the Regulations Regulations?

While the decision of the visa officer that is here under review might well have been reasonably open to her on the basis of the material that was before her, I conclude that is simply was not supported by her analysis. That analysis consisted of a mere counting of years of primary and secondary level education. I am satisfied that, as indicated in the Manual as quoted above, a mere counting of years is not a satisfactory method of determination of equivalency. In the result, I conclude that the visa officer erred in law in her interpretation of paragraph 20(1.1)(a) of the Regulations and in so doing erred in a reviewable manner in the application of that paragraph to the material that was before her on behalf of the applicant. That material clearly included a transcript of the applicant's educational record at the secondary school level. Absolutely no qualitative analysis was conducted to determine whether or not that transcript disclosed an equivalency between the secondary level education that the applicant had acquired and a Canadian secondary education. As Madam Justice Dawson concluded in Chatterjee v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)[2], albeit on different facts from those here before me, a mere counting of years as a test of equivalency represents a reviewable error.